This is a summary/tracking post that was updated throughout the Florida legislative session concerning two anti-evolution bills that were introduced in the Senate and House. Fortunately, the bills never made it into law in 2008.

STATE SENATE

SB 2692 Teaching Chemical and Biological Evolution; Cites act as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
— Filed 2/29/08 by Senator Ronda Storms.
— Introduced 03/20/08, referred to Education Pre-K – 12 committee and Judiciary committee.
— Scheduled on Committee agenda Education Pre-K – 12 for 03/26/08, 1:00 p.m.
— Bill analysis and committee amendment, essentially an edited version of the bill, are created on 3/25/08.
— Bill approved 3/26/08 by a 4-1 vote in the Education Pre-K – 12 committee meeting. Sens. Lisa Carlton, Alex Diaz de la Portilla, Steve Wise, and Larcenia Bullard voted for it. Committee Chairman Don Gaetz and Vice Chairwoman Frederica Wilson were absent. Sen. Ted Deutch was the lone dissent.
— Scheduled on Committee agenda Judiciary for 04/08/08, 10:45 a.m.
— Bill approved 4/8/08 by a 7-3 party line vote in the Judiciary committee meeting. Sens. Baker, Diaz de la Portilla, Fasano, Gaetz, Saunders, Webster, Villalobos voted for it. Sens. Ring, Geller, Deutch voted against it.
— Given second reading 4/17/08. Amendment proposed to meld “academic freedom” for both evolution and sex education. Amendment failed. During debate, Sen. Storms was questioned about intelligent design but steadfastly refuses to give a straight answer.
— Sen. Storms proposes amendment to her bill 4/22/08, which completely changes it to mirror the single line version REp. Hays is pushing through the House.
— Storms’ bill passes the full Senate on a vote of 21-17 on 4/23/08. However, her amendment from the day before failed. The bill was then sent to the House for its consideration.
— The House had a completely different version of the bill. Since the Senate had already rejected the House’s language when Storms proposed it as an amendment to her bill, she knew it would be a waste of time present the House’s final, approved version to her fellow senators. So, she shipped her Senate bill back to the house and asked that body to have another look at it and approve it. However, the final day of the session arrived (5/2/08) and the House leadership simply refused to even bring the bill to the floor. As a result, both the House and Senate bills died. Final result: no deceptively named “evolution academic freedom” law in Florida.

HB 1483 Teaching Chemical and Biological Evolution: Cites act as “Academic Freedom Act.”
— Filed 3/4/08 by Rep. D. Alan Hays.
— Bill had its first reading 3/4/08.
— Rep. Hays invites fellow lawmakers to screening of movie Expelled.
— Referred to the Schools & Learning Council, Friday, 3/7/08. House Schools & Learning Council page here.
— Scheduled on committee agenda Schools and Learning for 04/11/08, 9:30 a.m.
— Bill approved 4/11/08 by a 7-4 party line vote in the Schools and Learning committee meeting. Reps. Altman, Legg, McKeel, Pickens, Coley, McBurney, Flores voted for it. Reps. Bendross-Mindingall, Long, Kiar, Vana voted against it. Bill was amended to make it just one line emphasizing “critical analysis” of evolution. House version is now significantly different from Senate version.— Bill is scheduled for second reading to happen 4/25/08. At this time amendments are considered and debate happens, but there is no vote yet. The voting doesn’t happen until a third reading at a later date, which is not yet scheduled. Two amendments were filed on 4/24/08 by Rep. Martin David Kiar, who was opposed to the bill when it was before the Schools and Learning committee.
— The Senate bill was approved and sent to the House. The Senate and House bills are vastly different. Rep. Hays has filed an amendment to the Senate bill for the House’s consideration. This amendment would completely change it to conform to the House version. However, Sen. Storms had already tried that same tactic in the Senate before its final vote, but the amendment failed.
— Debate lasted an hour and a half in the House during the second reading on 04/25/08. The House bill was officially dropped in favor of the Senate bill. But the Senate bill text was then completely stripped and replaced with the House bill text. Essentially, the House bill is still there, just under a different bill number. Democrats were successful in adding the word “scientific” to Hays’ bill.
— Bill voted on by the full House 04/28/08 and passed 71-43.— The Senate had a completely different version of the bill. Since the Senate had already rejected the House’s language when Storms proposed it as an amendment to her bill, she knew it would be a waste of time present the House’s final, approved version to her fellow senators. So, she shipped her Senate bill back to the house and asked that body to have another look at it and approve it. However, the final day of the session arrived (5/2/08) and the House leadership simply refused to even bring the bill to the floor. As a result, both the House and Senate bills died. Final result: no deceptively named “evolution academic freedom” law in Florida.

Share this:

Related

This entry was posted
on Friday, May 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm and is filed under "Academic Freedom" bills '08.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

I haven’t signed up for any, as there are none near where I live. But one person who has said that they ask for a “title,” I presume a clerical title. So if you wish to see it you probably have to have one, or to come up with one by some other means (we’re all the priesthood of the religion of evolution, aren’t we?).

Here’s my advice: You claim that you are researching facts for your new book, entitled Trashing Darwin For Dummies. To get in, you probably will have to pass through something like a mental detector. It will be calibrated to “less than zero” to pass, so you will need to fudge that somehow (maybe some kind of drug). Be cool, restrain from laughing or hooting too much, lest you get tossed out. We want a full report.

Glen D., I like the “IDiot” tag, I haven’t seen that before, good. I had been thinking about trying to popularize “Cretards”

Yeah, I’m hoping to remain as low-key as possible. I’m sure that as long as I’m meek they’ll accept me as one of their flock. If asked any questions, I can certainly argue from the creationist perspective just as well as I can argue from the scientific perspective. An atheist like me has to learn early on how to play the “nice Christian boy” in order to survive. 🙂

I intend to commit as much of the movie to memory as I can, and I’ll attempt to write up a review. Most likely, I will need to remain pseudonymous in order to post the review. Once I get the review written up, I’ll shoot an e-mail to Brandon, and if he’s interested, he can post the review here.

If God made us all perfect, without sin, then we would all be gods. We would all have the right to decide what the rules were. This world would be a big mess. This world can only have one God.

When God put the tree in the garden and made the one rule, he was saying I have authority over you. Whether He actually put the tree there or not Adam and Eve were going to break that rule eventually, because they were not perfect. They were not gods. They were sinners.

Because He loved us He provided a redeemer for our sins. To be redeemed we must accept His redemption and turn from our sin and submit to His authority.
He knew that some would accept His authority and some would not. As a just God, He must punish those who refuse His authority. As a just God, He must allow those who will not choose redemption to make that choice. If He didn’t create those who would choose hell, then how would the others know that they made a choice.

He chose the Jews to be His people. He made laws for them, but He knew they would not be able to keep these laws. He gave them two thousand years to try and keep these laws. He used this time as a lesson for all humanity to know that they all were sinners and needed a redeemer. They could not obtain righteousness through their own actions, but they had to obtain it through faith. He loved us enough to send that redeemer in the form of Jesus.

In the same way, those who choose not to accept His redemption show those who do accept it that they are making a choice. If there was no one making the wrong choice then how would we know there was a choice to make.

God does not send people to hell. They make the choice. We as people could not make fair decisions about who should and should not go to heaven, because we only see the outside, the actions. We cannot see the heart. We cannot know the motivations behind a persons actions. We don’t know why someone does what they do or if they have turned away from their sin. We may see fruit, but the fruit may be a show and not really a product of the light within them.

Even if their motivation is sinful, He is merciful and willing to forgive, if only they will turn from their sin toward Him. The bible says that He does not want one to perish. It also says that he takes no pleasure in the death of anyone. It says that He searches after the lost lamb.
It also says that I love those who love me and those who seek me will find me.

Sometimes God uses those who hate Him to punish those who will turn to Him through that punishment. It is possible that if God didn’t create any of the people that He knew would not turn to Him, then some of the people that are now destined for heaven wouldn’t turn to HIm.

It may be that before people were created that God knew they were going to choose to go to hell and He would not have been just by allowing them to escape creation and then hell. By not creating them at all He may have been doing an injustice.

But in focusing on how could God send people to Hell you are distracted from the gift that God wants to give you.

Every other religion is based on how can I get to heaven without God or I will create my own God that agrees with what I think is right or I will create my own God that says I should just indulge myself in pleasure.

Usually when you indulge yourself in what you think will be pleasure, you don’t end up very happy.

There is one more religion and that is to think that your wisdom is so great that you are too proud to stoop to the ignorant level of one so dumb to think that there is a God that might know more than you and be able to do things that you cannot comprehend.

Don’t be deceived into thinking that you know all there is to know. Honestly turn away from your pride and ask, ” Are you there?” and He will show Himself to you.

ellie: Nice sermon,feel better now?
Why should I consider all that you wrote to be more than just YOUR personal take on the religion YOU have faith in?
Had you have been born and raised in Iraq you would be saying the same about Allah. I rather like Richard Dawkins discription of your god, he wrote
in describing the YHWH of the Old Testament as “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

“Every other religion is based on how can I get to heaven without God or I will create my own God that agrees with what I think is right or I will create my own God that says I should just indulge myself in pleasure.”

Glen D., I like the “IDiot” tag, I haven’t seen that before, good. I had been thinking about trying to popularize “Cretards”

“IDiot” is fairly common among the pro-science folk, actually. David Heddle (who has turned his back on ID, after being thick with them for a while) even chided us by saying “it’s not funny any more.” We don’t use the term to be funny, though. We use it because it fits them altogether too well, and it because it basically summarizes the outcomes of all of the battles that we’ve had with them.

Dr. Wells pointed out that research on antibiotic resistance wasn’t guided by Darwinian evolutionary theory. That evolution occurred — that is, that the population of bacteria changed over time — is obviously true, and obviously was relevant to the antibiotic resistance research. Dr. Wells made the observation that the research owed little to Darwin’s theory that all biological complexity arose by natural selection without teleology.

And here’s probably the best account of what’s actually in Expelled that I have seen:

I attended a screening of EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED yesterday in Dallas. We got struck in traffic, and arrived about twenty minutes into the picture. It was still wonderful. My son Joshua, a business major at Baylor, and Charley, my long time retired air force father in law, came too. On about three hours each of sleep the previous night, we watched the movie with unwavering interest. Wow. I want everybody to see this important film. I now know where I will do my Christmas shopping. John Sullivan, one of the movie’s producers, said EXPELLED will open on about a thousand screens in February. This is about the same number of screens for Michael Moore’s last documentary.There is sooooo much great stuff in this movie. Here are some bullets.

Like many great movies do, EXPELLED takes you on a roller coaster from belly laughs about some of the ridiculousness of Scientism, to anger at the manner Scientism treats good people, to alarm that atheism is being forced down our throats by the Academy, to hope that this problem can be corrected, and back to a belly laugh at one of Ben Stein’s quips.

The identity of Scientism as atheism dressed in a cheap tuxedo (my words) came across strongly in the movie – especially in the interviews with atheists Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, and Michael Ruse. These men may have to change their occupation descriptions in 2008 to “Punch line for EXPELLED.”

There are great animations of the inside workings of a cell. I’m not a biologist, but seeing this as an engineer invariably causes my jaw to drop.

The contribution of Darwinism to Nazi atrocities was addressed. This could have been over the top – but came off well. Parallel quotes from Hitler and Darwin were appropriately tempered by Berlinski saying something like “Of course Darwinism does not always lead to Nazism. It is, though, a necessary albeit not sufficient component.” There was a chilling visit to a Nazi “hospital” where the “unfit” were gassed by Hitler’s cult. The contribution of the euthanasia movement to the founding of Planned Parenthood was identified.

Old B&W movie clips were sprinkled throughout the film. One showed a 1950’s middle school bully (Big Science) sitting on the stomach of a victim (ID proponent) pinning his arms back. The bully boy keeps saying “OK. Now you’re on our side. Say you’re on our side!” It was hilarious.

There are also a bunch of short custom animated cartoons. One is an animation of Richard Dawkins frustrated at the low probabilities emanating from a bank of slot machines. The audience roared.

Here’s a teaser. How do Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins explain the origin of life? Be prepared to grin. I am reminded of Richard Feynman’s explanation of all that is bogus: The closer you look, the more it goes away.

The Berlin wall is used as a metaphor for the divide between ID and the Academy. On one side of the wall are researchers who are required to conform to an ideology in order to get funding and tenure. Near the end of the movie, there is a back and forth between Reagan’s “tear down this wall” speech and Ben Stein giving an speech on academic freedom. (a part of Ben Stein’s speech is in the EXPELLED Teaser Trailer.) I admit getting a wonderful shiver.

This is the ice berg tip. There is so much wonderful stuff in the movie. Co-Producer Mark Mathis said there are a lot of fantastic scenes that could not be included in the movie. When the EXPELLED DVD is released, there will be a second DVD with these extras. This takes care of my Christmas shopping for next year.

I’d link to it, but the link seems no longer to work (I put this on Expelled‘s blog, wondering if they might bother the guy for playing too loose with his confidentiality agreement–but it’s still on their blog).

Anyway, I just thought you might like to know more about what you’ll see at Expelled before you go, assuming it all works out. And if not, it won’t hurt for others to know a bit more about it.

The contribution of Darwinism to Nazi atrocities was addressed. This could have been over the top – but came off well. Parallel quotes from Hitler and Darwin were appropriately tempered by Berlinski saying something like “Of course Darwinism does not always lead to Nazism. It is, though, a necessary albeit not sufficient component.” There was a chilling visit to a Nazi “hospital” where the “unfit” were gassed by Hitler’s cult.

This is one recurrent theme for the anti-evolutionists that really needs to be addressed as the baseless lie that it is. From Mein Kampf to the rest of Hitler’s written works and speeches, numerous biblical references were used to justify the systemic killing of Jews. Even his so-called eugenics program about the Aryan master race superiority was based on biblical interpretations of bloodlines and folklore borrowed from other religious sources.

Well it must be bad, Rush Limbaugh thinks it’s “fabulous” (fabulous?). Cross-post from Talkorigins:

Ben Stein’s Film Blew Rush Away

March 18, 2008

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only — Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ben Stein has a new movie out. He brought it by my house
Friday afternoon to screen it for me. It’s called Expelled. It is
powerful. It is fabulous.

Good idea, Stein, bringing it by the egregious Rush. Much better than
showing it to anyone who understands science, history, truth.

And here’s the premise of his movie. The premise is that Darwinism has taken root, taken hold at every major intellectual institution
around the world in Western Society, from Great Britain to the United
States, you name it.

My God, so has QM and General Relativity. The bastards at Big
Science!

Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God.

His interviews with some of the professors who espouse Darwinism are literally shocking. The condescension and the arrogance these people have, they will readily admit that Darwinism and evolution do not explain how life began.

The condescension, the arrogance, to actually admit that MET doesn’t
address the beginning of life (at least not the earliest stages of
abiogenesis). This contrasts with the humility of Limbaugh and Stein,
who’ll insist that unknown causes were responsible, sans any evidence
whatsoever (don’t get me wrong, I don’t pretend that Dawkins is
humble. He’s not, but he’s hardly the blowhard that either Stein or
Limbaugh is).

One of these professors said it might have been that a hyper- intelligence from another planet came here and started our race. This from some professor either in the UK, I forget where it was, but can’t
be God.

Geez, Rush, even I know that was Dawkins, and I didn’t see the stupid
movie yet.

It can’t be God (as a scientific cause) for epistemological reasons,
because although we have reason to believe that aliens might exist, we
have none that God …[could]–at least no scientific evidence. That
doesn’t mean that we rule out God in an absolute sense, we just
recognize our limits. You belligerent morons recognize few if any
limits, no matter how legitimate.

These people are so threatened by the existence of God,

No, we are constrained by our limitations. Would that you were as
conservative with respect to making claims as scientists are.

they will not permit intelligent design to be discussed.

Is this why it is discussed a great deal (including by scientists),
despite the fact that there is no merit [in ID] for said discussions?

Professors have been fired, blackballed, and prevented from working who have deigned to try to combine the whole concept of evolution with intelligent design.

In other words, pseudoscience is not allowed in, due to its
evidentiary and methodological failings.

I think someone should tell Rush to really try and stop embarrassing himself. Remind him to do a little research before he opens his big mouth. Send him information on the “Clergy Letter Project”, remind him about the Establishment Clause, tell him to go talk to his priest, and explain the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. OH! and that there is no such thing as “Darwinism”.

(cue for ABO to chime in and say “uh huh, yes there is. I made a website saying so”)

God gives us freewill, but He also gives us consequences. He doesn’t want a bunch of robots. He wants people who make a choice to do the right thing even when they might have to make a sacrifice. He is also a just God. He warns us in advance of the consequences if we make the wrong choices, then He warns us again. Eventually He has to punish.

If you look in the old testament, you may see only the punishment. Look a little futher and you’ll see the promises for doing the right thing and the warnings about making the wrong choice.

He gives mercy and warning and offers second chances. Eventually He has to provide justice.

According to the bible, God created everything and it was good. Then because of sin we live in a fallen world.
The loss of the ability to synthesize Vitamin C actually goes along perfectly with the biblical account. Adam and Eve should have had no flaws and then because of the curse there was decrease in function. But it looks to me like a strike against evolutionary theory in which there are supposed to be mutations which increase the genetic information.

Well, there wasn’t much more to read, S. Scott. But now I realize why it didn’t work, which is because Talkorigins where I first posted cut off the address even though it still worked, but it didn’t keep working when I copied it to here.This link should work.

But what, Rush not act like an idiot? What are you trying to do, censor or EXPEL him? That’s what he is, it’s what he does. It’s his “God-given right” to be both mind-achingly stupid and wrong, and to be respected, just as it is for all of the IDiots. And we need laws to make it happen, don’t you know?

Well, I am back from my viewing of Expelled. It was just as terrible as expected. It’s interesting that the entire movie was spent in poking fun at evolution, but not a moment of the movie was spent defending ID. It’s strange that the movie was supposed to follow people in academia expelled for their ID beliefs, yet not a moment was spent in defining what these beliefs were, although a lot of time was spent in building strawmen to defend what the beliefs were not.

Apparently, the “academic freedom” message of the movie has been drummed up in order to gather support for the bills in state congress. During the Q&A session after the screening, the speaker requested that everyone write letters to tell their representatives to support these bills. There was also a call out to find any K-12 science teachers who were being “bullied” for holding creationist views.

I also got a bunch of cool fliers, a bumper sticker and some sort of DVD (I can’t wait to watch it).

Anyway, I’m going to write up a full review once I get a chance, including a complete rebuttal of every inane point that this movie made. If anyone here is interested in reading it, let me know.

Jonathan,
I have to respond to some of your tirade, because you obviously believe what you are saying is true.

It is easy to see how you might think that God is most of the adjectives you used, if you look at Him through the perspective that say a drunk would look at someone who was withholding his car keys.

I have a hard time seeing where you come up with infanticidal. Are you saying that God is now Pro Abortion?

As for misogynist, I would like to go into that in a bit more detail with you. I am sure that both you and Dawkins are quite the lady’s men. I used to support the feminist movement and I actually have a relative who was the Director of Women’s studies at a university.

I realized, though, that there was not one part of me that wanted to be a man. Not to say that there is anything wrong with being a man.

Today I feel the feminist movement is the most misogynist lie out there. It assumes that everything good is male and that we should be like men.
When God created Adam they both found something lacking, hence Eve.

I can bring home the bacon. I am perfectly capable of being independent and providing for myself as well as a family. When you put all the emphasis on these things and forget what really makes a woman special, you diminish the importance of the role for which she was naturally created.

Because of the feminist movement, women are expected to try to compete with men instead of help them.

We can be equal without trying to be the same. Our role of nurturing and childbearing is as important as the role of provider. It makes me angry that I’m expected to play the man’s role to the neglect of the role for which I was created. I think that the only reason that the feminist movement exists is that women looked to men instead of God to determine what is important.

Ellie, you seem to be all over the place. Let’s put God’s qualities into a personified perspective:

What kind of impression do you get from a man which:

Demands that you sacrifice your child to him as a sign of loyalty and faith
Kills off the first born children of everyone who goes against him
Kills off entire populations of people who goes against him
Encourages his subjects to kill off non-followers, take their land, rape their women
Allows misfortune/injury/death to be inflicted on his subjects to prove a their loyalty
Kills people for not being loyal to him before any other in often gruesome ways

And then one day, he gets a new PR guy, gives second chances, shows a little mercy every now and then, but his subjects are eventually still subjected to the same punishments should their loyalties falter.

Oxford Scientist Examines the Benefits of Hitler’s Breeding Program
by Lawrence Ford
In a supposed “letter to the editor” last week for the Sunday Herald of Scotland titled “Eugenics may not be bad,” Oxford professor Dr. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and leading evangelist for Darwinian evolution, defended the need to examine the positive benefits of selective human breeding or “eugenics” as Hitler had attempted in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
Actually, the Sunday Herald had lifted the Dawkins content from the Afterword in a new book by John Brockman titled What is Your Dangerous Idea? Eugenics is defined as “the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).”1
Some have called eugenics “racial hygiene,” a cleansing of the races to promote the good and eliminate the bad.
Hitler’s Nazi regime enacted the “Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring” in 1933, which effectively gave the Third Reich free reign to forcibly sterilize selected segments of German society as determined in the “Genetic Health Courts.” Other Nazi laws went further, such as Action T4, resulting in the euthanizing (aka murder) of millions by the end of the war, mostly Jews.
Dawkins, who has been called “Darwin’s Rottweiler” because of his aggressive defense of Darwinian evolution and his even more scathing attacks upon people of faith, considers the idea of eugenics natural:

…if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?
If there is no difference between cows and horses and dogs and humans, then Dawkins’ logic is rational and humans should expect to live on the Planet of the Apes, where we will eventually be bred for utilitarian purposes by more highly-evolved apes.
The scenario is, of course, ridiculous, but the moral vacuum in Dawkins’ reasoning still pushes him to toy with the possibilities:
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
Not surprisingly, Professor Dawkins has also backed a proposal for the United Nations to confer human rights on apes.
The Apostle Paul commented on this Godless logic long ago:
“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:25 NASB).

Funny you should preach on about the evils of eugenics when in fact the Bible is probably the oldest manuscript for the advocation for eugenics in the history of human civilization. You mentioned yourself the “racial hygiene” aspect of eugenics when conveniently neglecting the fact that throughout the bible, god has commanded his followers to slaughter entire populations of those who aren’t his “chosen” people, and in numerous instances, specifically singling out men, the elderly, and non-female children, and instructing them to take all the (usually virgin) females, presumably for the propagation of his own people (Numbers 31:16-18 and many others, must suck to be a Midianite at the time)

Overall, the history of the Christian religion paints God as a promoter of racial eugenics in which He instructs his own followers to slaughter entire populations of non-chosen people, take their land, and use their women for the propagation of more followers. (Deuteronomy 13: 5,6,8-9, 15, and many more)

Actually, your god does want robots. he wants people to obey and have strict guidelines for living. It’s all over the OT. heck, if your tribe cocked the wrong kinda dirt chances are near 100% that god would vaporize the people of Judea or my personal favorite, instead of punishing the person who fracked up, he’s gonna cause your entire tribe/lineage to be filled with boils.

OK, lemme get this straight. Our need for Vitamin C is because Adam and Eve screwed up?

I canna get past the Song of Solomon or Song of Songs, depending on which book you read. Maybe we should atheists should get together with you believers and read it together? I think it would bring us closer, don’t you?

Your mouth has said it. Planned parenthood was caught on tape encouraging those, who want to donate to them, so that minority babies could be aborted. Very disgusting.

Actually, there are different versions of this story. Each of these versions end the same though: the employee who egged on the voice actor, mainly because he thought (rightly so) that the guy was a crackpot, was fired. Claiming that Planned Parenthood itself was caught on tape doing this is meaningless if they fired the employee involved.

The majority of heterosexuals believe in creationism. The majority of the sodomites believe in evolution. What does that tell you ?

That statement tells me a couple of generalized things. 1.Sodomites are more intelligent and less prone to belief in ridiculous superstition than heteros. 2. Sodomites are evolving more rapidly than heteros. Besides that sodomites are proactive in helping to alleviate what is probably our largest crisis – gross overpopulation of the planet. Thank you.

This is the real Richard Dawkins, and of course I did NOT write Comment #9492. Nor, by the way, did I write any such article in the Sunday Herald, as Wesley J Smith alleges. I wrote something similar as the Afterword to a book by John Brockman (What’s your Dangerous Idea?) but that book is not yet published. If any Scottish readers can explain to me the origin of the rumour that I wrote an article or a ‘Letter to the Editor’ (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html) in the Sunday Herald (allegedly 19th November 2006) I’d be glad to hear. Was this ‘Letter to the Editor’ written by yet another impostor like the one who wrote Comment #9492?

“Like many great movies do, EXPELLED takes you on a roller coaster from belly laughs about some of the ridiculousness of Scientism, to anger at the manner Scientism treats good people, to alarm that atheism is being forced down our throats by the Academy, to hope that this problem can be corrected, and back to a belly laugh at one of Ben Stein’s quips.”

You can identify no principle that causes evolution just a false theory.

You can identify none of the principles of grammar, apparently.

If evolution did not have evidence to support it, then it would not be a scientific theory. Your statement is inane. You must think that if you repeat this lie long enough, it might convince some people.

Man, you are the deluded fool. Repeating the same old lies over and over again will not make it true. Your continued insistence on the link between Hitler and evolution in contradiction with the actual spoken and written words of Hitler himself, proclaiming over and over again that his persecution of the Jews was due to his duty as a Christian warrior for God shows how out of touch with reality you are.

I think the point that everyone here was trying to make is that trying to tie Hitler to evolution is just as ridiculous as tying him to religion. Sadly, Expelled also sinks to this level, which is probably where Man got the idea to begin with.

Personally, I think it would have been classic if Dawkins pointed out that half of his interview was expelled to make it look like he was arguing for panspermia, instead of invoking the same argument as he does in The God Delusion to show that even the extreme panspermia view of ID does not solve the problem of where that life came from.

Ellie, you said
““Every other religion is based on how can I get to heaven without God or I will create my own God that agrees with what I think is right or I will create my own God that says I should just indulge myself in pleasure.”

And then you said
“Give me an example of a religion that doesn’t fit one of my categories.”

I’m am gonna take a wild stab and say that Islam doesn’t fit that definition. Or Judisim. Or Zoarastrianism…….

The five tenets of secular humanism are (a) atheism, including nontheism and agnosticism; (b) evolution—Darwin is their archenemy; (c) “amorality,” which they characterize as to include pre- and extramarital sex, the feminist and gay agendas, abortion, euthanasia and the right to die; (d) autonomous man—the view that it is possible to lead an ethical life without belief in God, confidence that human beings can solve problems by their own resources, and the humanist conviction that there are positive human powers for doing good that can be untapped; and finally (e) globalism—the concern with the planetary rights of all humans in the world community. You all apparently want to create a theocratic Festung America!

” FWIW, as a Christian, I accept the overall design of things. I like Michael Heller’s view, which I’ve only just learned about, that chance should not be opposed to the divine plan. Earlier I would have described myself as an advocate of Gouldian NOMA, but it’s nice to find a Christian who thinks like Heller. I mention that because my opposition to ID is not atheistic or whatever: I just don’t think ID does much real scientific research, and I think co-opting real scientific research as an ID victory is an exercise in bad faith and sets a terrible witness.”

Tell me again, WHY do you think ID has a place in science class?????????????????

I hope you don’t mean by Torcaso v. Watkins. That’s the only mention I can find for Secular Humanism (the “secular” part makes it a philosophy — not a religion) by the US Supreme Court. However, this was an obiter dicta, which is not an official ruling by any means. Of course, that doesn’t prevent intellectually dishonest trolls like you from using it to claim “oh… this is a religion too…”

Of course, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with Secular Humanism, or any other religion. Your straw man argument is inane.

I’d also recommend that you take an introduction to philosophy class. You appear to hold the ignorant view that only religion can dictate morality or ethics, which was all but torn to shreds by Plato. I’d recommend reading Euthyphro… or perhaps just reading something, anything, but the one book that you like to thump.

Try <i>some italic text</i> to italicize some italic text. Use “b” instead of “i” to bold.

It’s very important that you close the <i> with </i>, because this blog apparently doesn’t fix unclosed text formatting. This causes all sorts of havoc in some web browsers, such as causing all comments after the one with the unclosed italics element to be displayed in italics.

This is cool, that others are curious. I only began commenting on blogs about three weeks ago. I was too embarrassed and concerned about being un-netiquettal to ask about how to format text or do anything. I knew zip.

I’ve been learning. You can highlight a section of text that you are curious about, right click, then select “View selection source”, and see how it was coded. From this site’s home page, you can scroll down to the bottom of the right sidebar and click “WordPress”. Create a free blog from there, and play with it.

This blog is XHTML 1.0 and is very similar to HTML 4.01. It can be confusing because there are a lot of different DTDs and what works one place doesn’t work at another. I wish this blog had a “preview” option. Sometimes I try to do something cute, it doesn’t work on that particular blog and bombs.

You guys are on the wrong side of the issues. You also probably believe in man made global warming, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, animal rights, big government, anti-business legislation, etc. You all are probably on the public dole – never have run a business, hate the Judeo-Christian faith, but will want tolerance for other ‘religions’, anti Israel, pro Palestinian, United nation adherents more than the United States Constitution, etc. Most of you are probably democrats although a few republicans are probably among your ranks. I could go on for several pages and you would have to admit its true – we all know it.

I don’t know about anyone else on this blog but I’ll tell you some things about me … I. … am retired from the USN. … Have always voted republican (but may not this time depending on who McCain’s running mate is). … Believe in God. … Am a Church/State separationist (just like the Danbury Baptists 🙂 ). … Know the difference between science and pseudo-science. … am married to a biology teacher. … Have children in Florida public school system. …
Have been around the world and have seen what effects religious opression can have. … and will do everything in my power to keep that from happening in this country. …I have standing and I’m not afraid to use it.

Now, I could make some assumptions about you based on your arrogant posts, but I’ll let people make up their own minds.

Man, I don’t know where you are pulling out those supposed stereotypes, but I think a few of them even run contrary to the more popular misconceptions of left wing extremism that you make us all out to be. I think you have your stereotypes mixed up there buddy. You seem pretty sure about who we all are, so what say you about yourself? I’d let loose with some stereotypes of my own about the fundie religious extremist types, but I don’t think I’ll stoop to your level. You go ahead and have fun quoting some more outta that bible of yours.

Man, didn’t you use that same crap line of thinking on another thread. ya, we all hate everything about religion etc. Ya know, when you spout crap like that, all I can think of is

Article 11 of the Treaty of TripoliArt. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Karl and Scott,
I’m sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you. I know you have been waiting with bated breath. 🙂
You may not appreciate my comments, but I have to actually thank you for your questions. By asking the tough questions you are helping me to delve deeper into God’s word and understand Him better.

I have been trying to see things from your perspective.

Whether you see God as homicidal, genocidal, etc. or as just, holy and loving depends on your perspective.

If you don’t see God as your creator, then you don’t see any reason to give Him authority over your life. If you don’t see that He should have authority over your life, then it is definitely unacceptable that He should punish anyone. If He shouldn’t punish anyone, then His punishment of women and children and even babies seems especially cruel. You also see death as the cruelest punishment , because you don’t believe in a life after this one. There is no way that you can accept such a cruel God as your creator, so you have to look for another explanation for your existence. Thus a cycle has been created.

Now, if you see things from this perspective, then it is only logical to interpret the scriptures as you do. If you see God as no more than a man, then His actions do seem horrendous.

However, by putting God at the same level as a man, you demote Him and elevate yourselves to a level where you don’t belong. If you consider His actions as evil, you may even elevate yourselves above God.

Now, if you see things from the believer’s perspective and you know that God is holy and just, it is still hard to understand why He would do some of the things that He has done.

If you really want to know someone though, you try to see things from their perspective. I believe that God wants us to really know Him and love Him for who He is and not for what He can do for us. He wants us to understand His actions from His perspective.

God has said that the wages of sin is death, meaning that when we sin we earn our own deaths. Since we have all sinned, we have all earned death. He would not be unjust to punish us to the fullest extent for even the most minor sin. God would not be considered unjust in killing us all.

He might be considered unmerciful, but God never promised to show mercy to us all. He said, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Exodus 33:19
He desires to protect those that have chosen to be with Him from physical and spiritual harm. Since He is God He knows who is guilty and who is innocent even before the crime is committed.

Try looking at the scriptures you gave me from God’s perspective rather than your own and see if you can’t see it differently.

Now, if you see things from this perspective, then it is only logical to interpret the scriptures as you do. If you see God as no more than a man, then His actions, which seem to be civil rights vioations, do seem horrendous.

Creationists assume perfect genetic information at the time of creation which has mutated and lost function over the course of time, while evolutionists assume an increase in genetic information.

Ah. The old information theory fallacy. The problem with this concept that creationists like Dembski attempt to use is that it does not hold up to any mathematical scrutiny. We can build genetic simulations based closely on the statistical models that have been built up from observing mutations in the wild. These simulations show clearly that information is created over time. I can speak to this side of things, because I get paid to write genetic algorithms for solving very difficult software problems. If it was impossible for evolution to result in new information, then I wouldn’t get a paycheck. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Were you on any of the “Gator Freightor’s” ?
USS Bataan in 2000. Also in the Amphibious Ready Group were the USS Shreveport and USS Whidbey Island. I stayed aboard all three, and the Bataan was, of course, the nicest since it was the newest. But the food was horrible. Chow on the older ships was actually much better!

The blog administrator(rightly so) does not want this to turn into a soley theocratic issue,this is a science site.How ever the push of your arguments are Xtian, bible based ideologies and reasoning.So I would say this.
I would ask you to really study the bible, but not through a filter composed of Christian fundamentals.Why should the bible be trusted as a reliable source?You aviod all scientific evidence entirely and blindly plod forward with biblical quotes.
If asked how you know your statements are true, you would probably say, because they are in the Bible. But, instead of asking yourself is the Bible true,you just assumed as much.Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable.Instead of proving the bible to be true, valid and inerrant, you merely assume as much and proceeded to quote at will. Ellie, all you know about god comes from scripture. The validity of god depends upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of scripture. How do you know god except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not “God’s Word” and does not present a picture of god that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true god you are following? You may be worshipping your own imagination.
You may say, sure I believe in the Bible, so what difference does it make if there is a few mistakes in it? After all, the Bible isn’t a history book.it’s not a science book.it only tells us about god and salvation.
Once conceding there are errors in the bible,then how do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false?
You like to think the bible as devine authority, but at best you only have partial biblical authority since the parts containing errors(which are many) obviously cannot be authoritative What is worse,you cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from god and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from god and are in error.
As the religious reformer, John Wesley, said “”If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.”
So from what authority (other than your own opinions) do you base you aurguments on?

I don’t believe there are any mistakes in the bible. I believe that it is a more reliable science or history book than any other ever written.

I have already shattered that illusion on a previous thread. Who was king when Jesus was born? If it was Herod, then Matthew is correct and Luke was wrong. If his birth happened during the census in Israel, then Luke is right and Matthew is wrong, because Herod was dead nearly ten years prior to this.

The value of pi is not three, even though the bible claims this to be so. Insects don’t have four legs, snakes don’t eat dust, the earth is a spheroid, etc. If you take your bible as a science book, then you have a very strange interpretation of science indeed. If you attempt to claim that these flaws in your bible are “spiritual” truths or transcendent truths, then you are contradicting yourself.

Science is based on the assumptions of men, based on their interpretation of data.
Perhaps you can help me to interpretate this from Genesis:God creates light and separates light from darkness, and seperates day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5
How can the day and night be seperated if the sun had not been created yet,were did the light come from?

I don’t believe there are any mistakes in the bible. I believe that it is a more reliable science or history book than any other ever written.

Ellie, if you believe the bible to be the absolute and reliable truth of god, then do us a favor and don’t seek any sort of medical attention the next time you are seriously injured or sick. After all, most medical innovations (particularly antibiotics) were developed under the principles of evolution.

According to the bible, the power of prayer can heal all injuries and sickness in the faithful. So pray away your injuries and sickness when they happen. Technically, to seek out medical attention during or after prayer would show that your faith has faltered because you are showing doubt as to the effectiveness of the prayer, and therefore, the very passages of the bible that extol the effectiveness of prayer. Be like these people:

I truly feel sorry for Ellie and her ilk. The absolute rejection of skepticism is abhorrent. I imagine that Ellie is a smart woman and if someone told her she was going to get $1 million from the IRS, she’d demand proof/verification. This seems to afflict the majority of god botherers. YOU can tell them that the QB for their teams rival is the best ever, and they’ll demand solid proof. A shame they don’t do the same when it comes to religion.

fireman, It is you who reject skepticism. I believe in the bible, because it is tried and true.
Actually, I’m skeptical of science, because I’ve seen so many things “proven” only to be found false. Take for instance, hormonal therapy in postmenopausal women. Ten years ago it was said to be proven to prevent heart attacks. Now, it actually has been shown to cause some cardiac events. If we can’t be sure of those things we can test right now, then how can we call evolution a fact. Is it that scientists want to call something a fact that can’t be reproduced, so that no one can prove them wrong?

Also, I thought I was expelled from this site, but I see that you were all contining our chat without me. I actually enjoy the challenge of our arguments and I believe that God gave us brains to use. As a Christian, I not only have to use my mind to argue with you, but there are so many false doctrines that call themselves Christian, one has to be constantly alert to dception.

Where is your objective evidence that it is true, ellie? If you want it to be taught as scientific fact, then it must stand up to the same rigorous scrutiny as evolution did.

It’s funny that you want to cast doubt on evolution, yet you prop up your fairy tales as beyond scrutiny.

As a Christian, I not only have to use my mind to argue with you, but there are so many false doctrines that call themselves Christian, one has to be constantly alert to dception.

It amuses me how you attack even fellow Christians for not being Christian enough. Let me guess, only someone who subscribes exactly to your own narrow worldview, and your own interpretation of your bible is correct? There is a word for people like you: irrational.